11–20 of 29 posts
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're actually advocating such a thing.
I would be highly interested in how this model incorporates appearances into it. In particular, if you can maintain the appearance of heavy sharing, without heavily sharing, that can land you closer to the benefits of not sharing, without the downsides.
That is essentially what the research is about. The "extortion" algorithm seems like it is playing nice, but cheats as much as it can get away with.
edit: Well, I suppose saying it that way is terrible. It is cheating. It is not the same as all forms of covert cheating, though.
Consider the effort it takes 1 person to build a house, or the amount of effort it would take to build an mp3 player alone from scratch.
Game theory would have you believe the optimal way to win at poker is to booby trap the card table and rob your competition.
Another theory suggests altruism ultimately trumps selfishness within species, as aggressive warlike creatures would kill each other off ad-infinitum, where as cooperation ultimately strengthens individuals beyond the sum of their parts. [2]
All things considered in earthly biology, the cooperation amongst all the various living cells and organs that make up life in a single creature shows something to the efforts of collaboration vs the race to the bottom of virus & parasitic behavior.
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're actually advocating such a thing.
Theories don't advocate things, only people do.
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're actually advocating such a thing.
(value of Russian civilian lives) = 0
(value of the world after nuking Russia) > (value of the world where Russia takes over) * (probability of Russia taking over)
Then game theory would suggest first strike would be best solution.
How about "Cooperation Calls Game Theory into Question"?
Game Theory lost all credibility when it advocated nuking Russia pre-emptively. Besides, most game theory studies don't even consider the possibility of self-destructive action, let alone evaluate whether they're actually advocating such a thing.
All game theory results depend entirely on your utility functions. If you set: (value of Russian civilian lives) = 0 (value of the world after nuking Russia) > (value of the world where Russia takes over) * (probability of Russia taking over) Then game theory would suggest first strike would be best solution.
Pack animals like dogs naturally discourage fighting amongst themselves [1]. Strife weakens the pack. Consider the effort it takes 1 person to build a house, or the amount of effort it would take to build an mp3 player alone from scratch. Game theory would have you believe the optimal way to win at poker is to booby trap the card table and rob your competition. Another theory suggests altruism ultimately trumps selfi…
One team is one top pro player the other team is 11 toddlers.
Who is going to win? Pretty sure its the pro player. Its better to be 1 top player than 11 toddlers.
Now lets make the team 1 top player and 11 5 year olds.
Probably the top player will still win and its still better to be a top player than 11 5 year olds.
Now lets take one top player and 11 teenagers at age 14...
Game theory is never really about the game that is played but always about the players playing the game.